.... if the US simply pulled out of the entire Middle East now and no longer purchased oil from there?

It may be worth the risk to find out. Of course there are several scenarios. Might this be one of them?

After the initial chaos and erratic spikes in oil prices, other suppliers (non OPEC sources e.g. the USA, Mexico, Canada ....) would come to the fore and tend to stabilize oil prices .... certainly higher then we see now. The Middle East factions and tribes and countries would war against each other until they come to their own senses. Let that be their own problem ........ but stay with me.

Because of resulting higher oil prices, we Americans would feel a big swift kick in the butt and be forced to conserve energy and renew American innovation efforts to seriously explore and develop alternate energy sources. When forced into such a 'corner', the America spirit can accomplish wonders in such a crisis. In the near term, with higher oil prices, our own U.S. oil fields would help put a cap on these resulting elevated oil prices ....... i.e. at higher prices it is actually worth developing our own domestic oil fields. A response would also have to include significant government funding. Now it is plausible that funding for rapid U.S. green alternate energy response would come from many sources.

1. Big $$$ savings in military costs from the Middle East exit.

2. More $$ savings from forced American (and other Western ?) conservation.

3. $ Without the Middle East's huge U.S. oil revenues, how will these countries eat and what will they use to buy all the goods and services they use today? Answer, they continue to buy much from the U.S. but now at higher prices (i.e. a benevolent variation on the let 'em try to drink their oil and eat their own sand approach). Result ..... more U.S. revenue from these states. Don't forget, these states need U.S. airplanes, foods and medicines and machines.

Now, just as developments after the U.S. Vietnam exit did not exactly result into the claimed "falling domino" catastrophe, it is quite possible that the U.S., if prepared, can indeed cope with short term difficult conditions that would ensue, and in the longer term emerge much better off. And as an added bonus, lot and lots of jobs would be created ........... sorely needed today.

Are our politicians creative enough, bold enough and brave enough to come up with such a pro-active plan and actually execute it? Don't hold your breath.

ocalhoun

Dennise wrote:

3. $ Without the Middle East's huge U.S. oil revenues, how will these countries eat and what will they use to buy all the goods and services they use today? Answer, they continue to buy much from the U.S. but now at higher prices (i.e. a benevolent variation on the let 'em try to drink their oil and eat their own sand approach). Result ..... more U.S. revenue from these states. Don't forget, these states need U.S. airplanes, foods and medicines and machines.

Silly.

The US is not the only country that buys oil, and it is certainly not the only country that produces goods and food.

If the US boycotted mid-east oil, they would simply sell oil to other countries around the world, especially China. And they would buy their stuff from the real manufacturing giants... like China.

handfleisch

Dennise wrote:

.... if the US simply pulled out of the entire Middle East now and no longer purchased oil from there?.

I agree with the sentiment. But it can't happen because of what the trillions of dollars mean to the military corporations and connected business interests that hold so much power in the USA -- certainly much more power on a day to day level than any elected official in a money-based democracy. Since you are a military person, for more info you might want to check out the writing of General Smedley Butler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

Quote:

War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, in which Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests have commercially benefited from warfare.

After he retired from the Marine Corps, Gen. Butler made a nationwide tour in the early 1930s giving his speech "War is a Racket".
...

In War Is A Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.

The work is divided into five chapters:

1. War is a racket
2. Who makes the profits?
3. Who pays the bills?
4. How to smash this racket!
5. To hell with war!

It contains this key summary:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

In another often cited quote from the book Butler says:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Voodoocat

I too like the sentiment- let them bicker amongst themselves and leave us alone, but I doubt that purchasing our oil from other sources would affect the Middle East much. America only purchases about 23% of our oil from the Middle East; there are many industrialized nations that would willingly take up the slack. Nonetheless, it would be a good idea to ween ourselves from reliance on that area.

3. $ Without the Middle East's huge U.S. oil revenues, how will these countries eat and what will they use to buy all the goods and services they use today? Answer, they continue to buy much from the U.S. but now at higher prices (i.e. a benevolent variation on the let 'em try to drink their oil and eat their own sand approach). Result ..... more U.S. revenue from these states. Don't forget, these states need U.S. airplanes, foods and medicines and machines.

Silly.

The US is not the only country that buys oil, and it is certainly not the only country that produces goods and food.

If the US boycotted mid-east oil, they would simply sell oil to other countries around the world, especially China. And they would buy their stuff from the real manufacturing giants... like China.

Yes,China needs oils very much.

deanhills

spring567 wrote:

Yes,China needs oils very much.

I thought they had lots of the stuff? But then I also thought that the competition was not just who has more oil than the other, but who can appropriate the most oil resources in the world, and probably stockpile their own. Isn't that what the US has been doing from the beginning of time? Especially after the major oil crisis of the seventies, when the Middle East started to reign in supplies and oil became expensive on a steep upward trend?

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

spring567 wrote:

Yes,China needs oils very much.

I thought they had lots of the stuff?

They do, but industrialization is starting to catch up with even the poor in China, which means that their oil needs are growing and may soon grow enormous in proportion with their population.

Quote:

But then I also thought that the competition was not just who has more oil than the other, but who can appropriate the most oil resources in the world, and probably stockpile their own.

Now this is odd... Is there a resource-appropriation game between world leaders going on that I'm not aware of?
Classically, the goal was survival... and gathering resources is only one part of that.
Defense against others and growth (both in numbers and technology) are also very important for that.

Quote:

Isn't that what the US has been doing from the beginning of time?

Well the US has changed several times in history, drastically enough to say that it has changed what it was doing... And you certainly can't say the US has been doing anything since the beginning of time; it's only been there for a few hundred years, after all. ^.^
Though, a mad grab for resources of all kinds may well describe the USA's actions lately.

Quote:

Especially after the major oil crisis of the seventies, when the Middle East started to reign in supplies and oil became expensive on a steep upward trend?

The oil crisis in the 70's made the US government aware of the problem of oil supply, yes. That caused them to create an oil stockpile for emergencies, and it caused them to change foreign policy in ways that would hopefully increase and maintain oil supply.

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

Now this is odd... Is there a resource-appropriation game between world leaders going on that I'm not aware of?

Yes, and outspokenly so. Refer current expeditions by Russia, Canada and others into the Arctic to explore oil and other resources. Russia very boldly since May has made announcements that they can't sit back. The resources are there and if they don't act, others will.

i cant stop wondering what will really happen if our politicians turn to be true.... they have all it takes to keep or make life better but they consider party members first before any one... well i have made up my mind not to leave them to run our politice the way they want it because the way they run it affects us ie me and you... i always pray that God will give us leaders after his heart that will lead us to happiness.

uzeed

Politicians will tell us heaven and earth during campaign but after they win the election the story changes.... they start getting levels and class of people to miss up with.... they change friends and they turn into big boys.... Anyway there will be no place to hide for them..